Three dimensions of technological sovereignty

These three dimensions are not merely analytical categories. They define the kind of institution Europe needs if sovereignty is to become something more than a slogan. The European Tech Sovereignty Institute was designed accordingly.

It is not a conventional research centre, nor a commercial company, nor a traditional non-profit association. It is designed to combine the intellectual freedom of an academic institute, the execution capacity of an enterprise and the public-interest mission of a civic association.

Why this hybrid form? Because studying technological sovereignty is no longer enough. Europe also needs institutions capable of designing, prototyping and deploying concrete alternatives to the centralised models that dominate today's digital economy.

An ordinary think tank produces analysis. A company sells products. A non-profit association campaigns or serves a community. The Institute occupies a different space: it produces rigorous research, builds practical tools and acts in the public interest while preserving its independence from both public and private capture. Funding is a motor — it lets us move fast and hire talent — but the destination is collective utility, not private profit.

This is the reasoning behind our local AI project. We do not wish to complain about foreign hyperscalers while remaining dependent on them. We want to demonstrate that another path is technically possible, economically viable and legally sound: an artificial intelligence that belongs to the individual, runs locally, and keeps personal data under the user's exclusive control.

This hybrid form means we can raise resources, assemble teams, prototype hardware and distribute tools without waiting for a traditional public procurement cycle or surrendering our mission to a single shareholder. We can be fast like a company, rigorous like a research centre, and accountable like an association driven by a public-interest purpose.

From these observations follows a single research question: how can Europe move from political intention to technological capacity?

Political choices → industrial strategy → legal implementation → technological capacity.

Our research examines how Europe can build, scale and control strategic technological capabilities. This requires bringing together three perspectives that are too often treated separately.

The political perspective identifies the dependencies Europe considers critical, the capabilities it seeks to develop and the degree of autonomy or interdependence it aims to achieve.

The economic and industrial perspective examines the conditions under which those capabilities can emerge and grow: investment and access to capital, innovation and scaling, Public demand, infrastructure, and Europe's position within global value chains.

The legal and institutional perspective analyses how these political priorities and economic conditions are translated into rules, incentives and governance structures. It extends beyond EU technology regulation to the full spectrum of economic law, including corporate law, intellectual property, competition law, contract and liability law, Public procurement, foreign investment and state aid.

These perspectives are inseparable. Political objectives shape industrial policy; industrial policy relies on legal instruments; and law determines whether European firms can innovate, finance their growth and scale across the Single Market.